At 7/22/2013 9:14:38 PM, Skynet wrote:Hoping to discuss the subject with Mikal here...

If you want my view though, it is essentially that there can be no overall sense of right and wrong. That culture determines morality. If we were living in a different time or different culture we would condone murder, rape, and anything else you could place here and there would be no means to judge it by. We could only judge that culture based off of what we know as a society. If they were to judge us they would have a reverse opinion. Since there is no gauge by which to judge people, it is impossible to say that there is a universal right and wrong.

At 7/22/2013 9:14:38 PM, Skynet wrote:Hoping to discuss the subject with Mikal here...

I would have taken the debate but i just had that discussion. It would be futile because at the end of it , if we both go with certain lines of logic we would be arguing the same thing.

We could still debate, but I think we come from such different points of view that we may not totally understand what page the other is on. So I would like to discuss it in a less constrained format, first.

I'm reading through your debate with MrSatan, and I disagree with him on a few things, plus I come at it from a theistic point of view, so I don't think we would end up arguing different sides of the same coin, like you did with him. I make an effort to post more after work tomorrow.

One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.

At 7/22/2013 9:45:53 PM, Drayson wrote:So.....what, the rest of us have to just sit here and watch? :/

Oh, and objective morality....no such thing in my view :P

I don't know how to lock a thread, so yes, but I can't do anything about it but *mostly* ignore people. Unless Mikal is willing to start PMing me, then this thread will be abandoned, and our discussion will continue in private.

One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.

At 7/22/2013 9:45:53 PM, Drayson wrote:So.....what, the rest of us have to just sit here and watch? :/

Oh, and objective morality....no such thing in my view :P

I don't know how to lock a thread, so yes, but I can't do anything about it but *mostly* ignore people. Unless Mikal is willing to start PMing me, then this thread will be abandoned, and our discussion will continue in private.

I am fine with it either way. It is so had to tackle it from a theist vs non theist. To argue that objective morality exists from a theist stand point is irrefutable because its a Gap argument. We only know morality as we define it, so its logical for most people to assume that there is right and wrong going on in third world countries based of our perspective of it. I would argue that there is no right and wrong because they are acting only off what they know. If we had the same level of knowledge that they did, we would in turn act the same way. We would not even have a perspective as how to gauge this conversation with a lower level of knowledge. We would be arguing that murder is a necessity if we were in different parts of the world.

At 7/22/2013 9:14:38 PM, Skynet wrote:Hoping to discuss the subject with Mikal here...

If you want my view though, it is essentially that there can be no overall sense of right and wrong. That culture determines morality. If we were living in a different time or different culture we would condone murder, rape, and anything else you could place here and there would be no means to judge it by. We could only judge that culture based off of what we know as a society. If they were to judge us they would have a reverse opinion. Since there is no gauge by which to judge people, it is impossible to say that there is a universal right and wrong.

This is like saying 'If you were born in 1200, you would not know about Newtonian physics, so physics is just a matter of opinion'.

At 7/22/2013 9:14:38 PM, Skynet wrote:Hoping to discuss the subject with Mikal here...

If you want my view though, it is essentially that there can be no overall sense of right and wrong. That culture determines morality. If we were living in a different time or different culture we would condone murder, rape, and anything else you could place here and there would be no means to judge it by. We could only judge that culture based off of what we know as a society. If they were to judge us they would have a reverse opinion. Since there is no gauge by which to judge people, it is impossible to say that there is a universal right and wrong.

This is like saying 'If you were born in 1200, you would not know about Newtonian physics, so physics is just a matter of opinion'.

Except Newtonian physics is fundamentally objective. The objective perspective of the people in the 1200s was different than our objective perspective but evolved as their knowledge progressed. We can now say some of the views they shared were inaccurate but if you were alive in that time period the only gauge you would have on anything is the direct amount of knowledge that was available. Also this is not true with morality. If you are using scientific laws as an objective principles, there is no room for it to be subjective. Where as morality is entirely dependent on a persons perspective.

Example 1 : You could say the sun is blue. This is not subjective. Where as you may possibly be able to contrive this, we have specific evidence to show this is false. You could even use the word scientific law.

Example 2 : Gay marriage is wrong. This is a subjective view point. There is no way to prove this to be false or wrong and is directly relevant to the culture.

Example 3 : If you were to kill someone in order to save yourself. If you are saying murder is objectively wrong, you would have to address this also. If you were to change the argument that certain things are objective depending on the situation, you are then admitting that it is subjective.

At 7/22/2013 9:14:38 PM, Skynet wrote:Hoping to discuss the subject with Mikal here...

If you want my view though, it is essentially that there can be no overall sense of right and wrong. That culture determines morality. If we were living in a different time or different culture we would condone murder, rape, and anything else you could place here and there would be no means to judge it by. We could only judge that culture based off of what we know as a society. If they were to judge us they would have a reverse opinion. Since there is no gauge by which to judge people, it is impossible to say that there is a universal right and wrong.

This is like saying 'If you were born in 1200, you would not know about Newtonian physics, so physics is just a matter of opinion'.

Except Newtonian physics is fundamentally objective. The objective perspective of the people in the 1200s was different than our objective perspective but evolved as their knowledge progressed. We can now say some of the views they shared were inaccurate but if you were alive in that time period the only gauge you would have on anything is the direct amount of knowledge that was available. Also this is not true with morality. If you are using scientific laws as an objective principles, there is no room for it to be subjective. Where as morality is entirely dependent on a persons perspective.

Example 1 : You could say the sun is blue. This is not subjective. Where as you may possibly be able to contrive this, we have specific evidence to show this is false. You could even use the word scientific law.

Example 2 : Gay marriage is wrong. This is a subjective view point. There is no way to prove this to be false or wrong and is directly relevant to the culture.

Example 3 : If you were to kill someone in order to save yourself. If you are saying murder is objectively wrong, you would have to address this also. If you were to change the argument that certain things are objective depending on the situation, you are then admitting that it is subjective.

This amounts to a restatement of relativistic subjectivism for morality, not an argument for it. These "examples" simply assume your point by reasserting it in various incarnations, but they don't make it for you.

"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker

At 7/22/2013 9:14:38 PM, Skynet wrote:Hoping to discuss the subject with Mikal here...

If you want my view though, it is essentially that there can be no overall sense of right and wrong. That culture determines morality. If we were living in a different time or different culture we would condone murder, rape, and anything else you could place here and there would be no means to judge it by. We could only judge that culture based off of what we know as a society. If they were to judge us they would have a reverse opinion. Since there is no gauge by which to judge people, it is impossible to say that there is a universal right and wrong.

This is like saying 'If you were born in 1200, you would not know about Newtonian physics, so physics is just a matter of opinion'.

Except Newtonian physics is fundamentally objective. The objective perspective of the people in the 1200s was different than our objective perspective but evolved as their knowledge progressed. We can now say some of the views they shared were inaccurate but if you were alive in that time period the only gauge you would have on anything is the direct amount of knowledge that was available. Also this is not true with morality. If you are using scientific laws as an objective principles, there is no room for it to be subjective. Where as morality is entirely dependent on a persons perspective.

Example 1 : You could say the sun is blue. This is not subjective. Where as you may possibly be able to contrive this, we have specific evidence to show this is false. You could even use the word scientific law.

Example 2 : Gay marriage is wrong. This is a subjective view point. There is no way to prove this to be false or wrong and is directly relevant to the culture.

Example 3 : If you were to kill someone in order to save yourself. If you are saying murder is objectively wrong, you would have to address this also. If you were to change the argument that certain things are objective depending on the situation, you are then admitting that it is subjective.

This amounts to a restatement of relativistic subjectivism for morality, not an argument for it. These "examples" simply assume your point by reasserting it in various incarnations, but they don't make it for you.

Haha, yeah. That's why I'd rather save it for the debate. He also conflates 'objective' with 'absolute' in example 3.

At 7/22/2013 9:14:38 PM, Skynet wrote:Hoping to discuss the subject with Mikal here...

If you want my view though, it is essentially that there can be no overall sense of right and wrong. That culture determines morality. If we were living in a different time or different culture we would condone murder, rape, and anything else you could place here and there would be no means to judge it by. We could only judge that culture based off of what we know as a society. If they were to judge us they would have a reverse opinion. Since there is no gauge by which to judge people, it is impossible to say that there is a universal right and wrong.

This is like saying 'If you were born in 1200, you would not know about Newtonian physics, so physics is just a matter of opinion'.

Except Newtonian physics is fundamentally objective. The objective perspective of the people in the 1200s was different than our objective perspective but evolved as their knowledge progressed. We can now say some of the views they shared were inaccurate but if you were alive in that time period the only gauge you would have on anything is the direct amount of knowledge that was available. Also this is not true with morality. If you are using scientific laws as an objective principles, there is no room for it to be subjective. Where as morality is entirely dependent on a persons perspective.

Example 1 : You could say the sun is blue. This is not subjective. Where as you may possibly be able to contrive this, we have specific evidence to show this is false. You could even use the word scientific law.

Example 2 : Gay marriage is wrong. This is a subjective view point. There is no way to prove this to be false or wrong and is directly relevant to the culture.

Example 3 : If you were to kill someone in order to save yourself. If you are saying murder is objectively wrong, you would have to address this also. If you were to change the argument that certain things are objective depending on the situation, you are then admitting that it is subjective.

This amounts to a restatement of relativistic subjectivism for morality, not an argument for it. These "examples" simply assume your point by reasserting it in various incarnations, but they don't make it for you.

Haha, yeah. That's why I'd rather save it for the debate. He also conflates 'objective' with 'absolute' in example 3.

This is true. Objectivity isn't equivalent to unqualified universality.

"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker

At 7/22/2013 9:14:38 PM, Skynet wrote:Hoping to discuss the subject with Mikal here...

If you want my view though, it is essentially that there can be no overall sense of right and wrong. That culture determines morality. If we were living in a different time or different culture we would condone murder, rape, and anything else you could place here and there would be no means to judge it by. We could only judge that culture based off of what we know as a society. If they were to judge us they would have a reverse opinion. Since there is no gauge by which to judge people, it is impossible to say that there is a universal right and wrong.

This is like saying 'If you were born in 1200, you would not know about Newtonian physics, so physics is just a matter of opinion'.

Except Newtonian physics is fundamentally objective. The objective perspective of the people in the 1200s was different than our objective perspective but evolved as their knowledge progressed. We can now say some of the views they shared were inaccurate but if you were alive in that time period the only gauge you would have on anything is the direct amount of knowledge that was available. Also this is not true with morality. If you are using scientific laws as an objective principles, there is no room for it to be subjective. Where as morality is entirely dependent on a persons perspective.

Example 1 : You could say the sun is blue. This is not subjective. Where as you may possibly be able to contrive this, we have specific evidence to show this is false. You could even use the word scientific law.

Example 2 : Gay marriage is wrong. This is a subjective view point. There is no way to prove this to be false or wrong and is directly relevant to the culture.

Example 3 : If you were to kill someone in order to save yourself. If you are saying murder is objectively wrong, you would have to address this also. If you were to change the argument that certain things are objective depending on the situation, you are then admitting that it is subjective.

This amounts to a restatement of relativistic subjectivism for morality, not an argument for it. These "examples" simply assume your point by reasserting it in various incarnations, but they don't make it for you.

I have to clear out some of my current debates before I can start a new one.

It is entirely relevant due to the fact once you admit that certain situations are completely dependent on the situation they are subjective.

When you are saying objective, you are literally arguing the fact that there are fundamental principles that can not be changed. When you say this in the aspect of what is right and wrong , you then take on the challenge of showing why the perspective you have of morality is universal.

Your logic was to apply this to the laws of physics. Essentially saying that absence of knowledge during that specific time frame does not change the objectivity of it. That is an accurate assertion. Those specific laws were universally objective. To do this with morality is illogical. The reasons those specific laws are universal is because of a multitude of facts that show that they are true. This is non debatable. Like i said it would be like arguing that evolution is false. Morality is a state of mind, not a scientific principle.

At 7/22/2013 9:14:38 PM, Skynet wrote:Hoping to discuss the subject with Mikal here...

If you want my view though, it is essentially that there can be no overall sense of right and wrong. That culture determines morality. If we were living in a different time or different culture we would condone murder, rape, and anything else you could place here and there would be no means to judge it by. We could only judge that culture based off of what we know as a society. If they were to judge us they would have a reverse opinion. Since there is no gauge by which to judge people, it is impossible to say that there is a universal right and wrong.

This is like saying 'If you were born in 1200, you would not know about Newtonian physics, so physics is just a matter of opinion'.

Except Newtonian physics is fundamentally objective. The objective perspective of the people in the 1200s was different than our objective perspective but evolved as their knowledge progressed. We can now say some of the views they shared were inaccurate but if you were alive in that time period the only gauge you would have on anything is the direct amount of knowledge that was available. Also this is not true with morality. If you are using scientific laws as an objective principles, there is no room for it to be subjective. Where as morality is entirely dependent on a persons perspective.

Example 1 : You could say the sun is blue. This is not subjective. Where as you may possibly be able to contrive this, we have specific evidence to show this is false. You could even use the word scientific law.

Example 2 : Gay marriage is wrong. This is a subjective view point. There is no way to prove this to be false or wrong and is directly relevant to the culture.

Example 3 : If you were to kill someone in order to save yourself. If you are saying murder is objectively wrong, you would have to address this also. If you were to change the argument that certain things are objective depending on the situation, you are then admitting that it is subjective.

This amounts to a restatement of relativistic subjectivism for morality, not an argument for it. These "examples" simply assume your point by reasserting it in various incarnations, but they don't make it for you.

I have to clear out some of my current debates before I can start a new one.

It is entirely relevant due to the fact once you admit that certain situations are completely dependent on the situation they are subjective.

When you are saying objective, you are literally arguing the fact that there are fundamental principles that can not be changed. When you say this in the aspect of what is right and wrong , you then take on the challenge of showing why the perspective you have of morality is universal.

Your logic was to apply this to the laws of physics. Essentially saying that absence of knowledge during that specific time frame does not change the objectivity of it. That is an accurate assertion. Those specific laws were universally objective. To do this with morality is illogical. The reasons those specific laws are universal is because of a multitude of facts that show that they are true. This is non debatable. Like i said it would be like arguing that evolution is false. Morality is a state of mind, not a scientific principle.

Maybe I should rethink debating you, as you clearly don't understand the difference between objective and absolute ideas of morality, nor do you understand the purpose of my argument, and instead replace with a straw man.

At 7/22/2013 9:14:38 PM, Skynet wrote:Hoping to discuss the subject with Mikal here...

If you want my view though, it is essentially that there can be no overall sense of right and wrong. That culture determines morality. If we were living in a different time or different culture we would condone murder, rape, and anything else you could place here and there would be no means to judge it by. We could only judge that culture based off of what we know as a society. If they were to judge us they would have a reverse opinion. Since there is no gauge by which to judge people, it is impossible to say that there is a universal right and wrong.

This is like saying 'If you were born in 1200, you would not know about Newtonian physics, so physics is just a matter of opinion'.

Except Newtonian physics is fundamentally objective. The objective perspective of the people in the 1200s was different than our objective perspective but evolved as their knowledge progressed. We can now say some of the views they shared were inaccurate but if you were alive in that time period the only gauge you would have on anything is the direct amount of knowledge that was available. Also this is not true with morality. If you are using scientific laws as an objective principles, there is no room for it to be subjective. Where as morality is entirely dependent on a persons perspective.

Example 1 : You could say the sun is blue. This is not subjective. Where as you may possibly be able to contrive this, we have specific evidence to show this is false. You could even use the word scientific law.

Example 2 : Gay marriage is wrong. This is a subjective view point. There is no way to prove this to be false or wrong and is directly relevant to the culture.

Example 3 : If you were to kill someone in order to save yourself. If you are saying murder is objectively wrong, you would have to address this also. If you were to change the argument that certain things are objective depending on the situation, you are then admitting that it is subjective.

This amounts to a restatement of relativistic subjectivism for morality, not an argument for it. These "examples" simply assume your point by reasserting it in various incarnations, but they don't make it for you.

I have to clear out some of my current debates before I can start a new one.

It is entirely relevant due to the fact once you admit that certain situations are completely dependent on the situation they are subjective.

I think you misunderstand the notion of subjectivity, or at least the common one. A subjective theory allows the statement 'A is moral' to change depending on who states it. An objective theory does not. An objective theory however allows for 'A is moral in scenario X' and 'A is moral in scenario Y' to have different answers. In other words, a subjective theory can depend on who is looking, whereas an objective theory only depends on what you are looking at and how wide your eyes are.

When you are saying objective, you are literally arguing the fact that there are fundamental principles that can not be changed. When you say this in the aspect of what is right and wrong , you then take on the challenge of showing why the perspective you have of morality is universal.

Actually, you are not arguing that they cannot be changed or questioned just that any attempt to do so will always result in the same answer or a wrong one. Now you are welcome to assert otherwise but the position is not itself an incoherent one (though I would say it is unsupportable).

Your logic was to apply this to the laws of physics. Essentially saying that absence of knowledge during that specific time frame does not change the objectivity of it. That is an accurate assertion. Those specific laws were universally objective. To do this with morality is illogical. The reasons those specific laws are universal is because of a multitude of facts that show that they are true. This is non debatable. Like i said it would be like arguing that evolution is false. Morality is a state of mind, not a scientific principle.

It's not illogical, it might be unsupported but illogicality would require it to be self-contradictory.

At 7/23/2013 12:02:59 AM, Jack212 wrote:You hold one view on morality, I hold another. We disagree, and no empirical test can tell whose morals are "correct". Therefore, morality is subjective.

What a nuanced and sophisticated view.

I addressed your case directly. Absence of knowledge does not change objectivity. You are using semantics with the word objective, and apparently are missing the meaning of the word.

Gaston could write it far better than I hope to

"According to ethical objectivity, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons"

You didn't address anything, because my argument had nothing to do with absence of knowledge. That is simply a misunderstanding on your part, a person with poor philosophical training. No, I was referring to the fact that disagreement does not entail there being no right answer.

Yes, moral objectivity says that the truth of a statement has nothing to do with opinion. Note that. It does not deny that people come to know moral propositions through culture or emotion. It just denies that it has any bearing on its ontological status.

At 7/23/2013 12:02:59 AM, Jack212 wrote:You hold one view on morality, I hold another. We disagree, and no empirical test can tell whose morals are "correct". Therefore, morality is subjective.

What a nuanced and sophisticated view.

I addressed your case directly. Absence of knowledge does not change objectivity. You are using semantics with the word objective, and apparently are missing the meaning of the word.

Gaston could write it far better than I hope to

"According to ethical objectivity, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons"

You didn't address anything, because my argument had nothing to do with absence of knowledge. That is simply a misunderstanding on your part, a person with poor philosophical training. No, I was referring to the fact that disagreement does not entail there being no right answer.

Yes, moral objectivity says that the truth of a statement has nothing to do with opinion. Note that. It does not deny that people come to know moral propositions through culture or emotion. It just denies that it has any bearing on its ontological status.

You can state whatever you want, your entire analogy was based on absence of evidence. If you wanted it to entail something different, you should have chose better wording.

At 7/23/2013 12:02:59 AM, Jack212 wrote:You hold one view on morality, I hold another. We disagree, and no empirical test can tell whose morals are "correct". Therefore, morality is subjective.

What a nuanced and sophisticated view.

I addressed your case directly. Absence of knowledge does not change objectivity. You are using semantics with the word objective, and apparently are missing the meaning of the word.

Gaston could write it far better than I hope to

"According to ethical objectivity, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons"

You didn't address anything, because my argument had nothing to do with absence of knowledge. That is simply a misunderstanding on your part, a person with poor philosophical training. No, I was referring to the fact that disagreement does not entail there being no right answer.

Yes, moral objectivity says that the truth of a statement has nothing to do with opinion. Note that. It does not deny that people come to know moral propositions through culture or emotion. It just denies that it has any bearing on its ontological status.

You can state whatever you want, your entire analogy was based on absence of evidence. If you wanted it to entail something different, you should have chose better wording.

At 7/23/2013 12:02:59 AM, Jack212 wrote:You hold one view on morality, I hold another. We disagree, and no empirical test can tell whose morals are "correct". Therefore, morality is subjective.

What a nuanced and sophisticated view.

I addressed your case directly. Absence of knowledge does not change objectivity. You are using semantics with the word objective, and apparently are missing the meaning of the word.

Gaston could write it far better than I hope to

"According to ethical objectivity, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons"

You didn't address anything, because my argument had nothing to do with absence of knowledge. That is simply a misunderstanding on your part, a person with poor philosophical training. No, I was referring to the fact that disagreement does not entail there being no right answer.

Yes, moral objectivity says that the truth of a statement has nothing to do with opinion. Note that. It does not deny that people come to know moral propositions through culture or emotion. It just denies that it has any bearing on its ontological status.

You can state whatever you want, your entire analogy was based on absence of evidence. If you wanted it to entail something different, you should have chose better wording.

Or you should learn to understand the English language.

When you state that a specific state of mind(x) is objective irregardless of the time period because of evidence that is available today. That is invoking absence of evidence. I have no idea how else to state that, it is like trying to talk to wall. If you want to change the definition of how you perceive this, it would be 3 rounds of semantics and a huge waste of the limited amount of time that I already have.

Defined1.Moral objectivity (also called minimal or moderate moral realism), the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics or morality is universally valid, without any further semantic or metaphysical claim.

At 7/23/2013 12:02:59 AM, Jack212 wrote:You hold one view on morality, I hold another. We disagree, and no empirical test can tell whose morals are "correct". Therefore, morality is subjective.

What a nuanced and sophisticated view.

I addressed your case directly. Absence of knowledge does not change objectivity. You are using semantics with the word objective, and apparently are missing the meaning of the word.

Gaston could write it far better than I hope to

"According to ethical objectivity, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons"

You didn't address anything, because my argument had nothing to do with absence of knowledge. That is simply a misunderstanding on your part, a person with poor philosophical training. No, I was referring to the fact that disagreement does not entail there being no right answer.

Yes, moral objectivity says that the truth of a statement has nothing to do with opinion. Note that. It does not deny that people come to know moral propositions through culture or emotion. It just denies that it has any bearing on its ontological status.

You can state whatever you want, your entire analogy was based on absence of evidence. If you wanted it to entail something different, you should have chose better wording.

Or you should learn to understand the English language.

When you state that a specific state of mind(x) is objective irregardless of the time period because of evidence that is available today. That is invoking absence of evidence. I have no idea how else to state that, it is like trying to talk to wall. If you want to change the definition of how you perceive this, it would be 3 rounds of semantics and a huge waste of the limited amount of time that I already have.

Defined1.Moral objectivity (also called minimal or moderate moral realism), the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics or morality is universally valid, without any further semantic or metaphysical claim.

And, on the same token, this is like reading a children's book called 'Baby's First Relativism'.

The existence of disagreement or change in beliefs over time relates to epistemology. Your line of reasoning is that disagreement between cultures necessarily requires them to be on equal footing in reality. The problem is solely epistemological. For instance, physics is not a matter of opinion because a culture can conceive of some BS notions of how matter and energy work. Why, then, is morality a matter of opinion just because disagreement exists?

Also, if you're going to use Wikipedia for definitions, be consistent with it. You defined moral objectivity as ' the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics or morality is universally valid, without any further semantic or metaphysical claim.' This was copied and pasted from Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia says this is actually the definition for moral universalism. You clearly edited it out to support whatever point it was you were trying to make. And you're writing a 'thesis'? Get real.

At 7/23/2013 12:02:59 AM, Jack212 wrote:You hold one view on morality, I hold another. We disagree, and no empirical test can tell whose morals are "correct". Therefore, morality is subjective.

What a nuanced and sophisticated view.

I addressed your case directly. Absence of knowledge does not change objectivity. You are using semantics with the word objective, and apparently are missing the meaning of the word.

Gaston could write it far better than I hope to

"According to ethical objectivity, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons"

You didn't address anything, because my argument had nothing to do with absence of knowledge. That is simply a misunderstanding on your part, a person with poor philosophical training. No, I was referring to the fact that disagreement does not entail there being no right answer.

Yes, moral objectivity says that the truth of a statement has nothing to do with opinion. Note that. It does not deny that people come to know moral propositions through culture or emotion. It just denies that it has any bearing on its ontological status.

You can state whatever you want, your entire analogy was based on absence of evidence. If you wanted it to entail something different, you should have chose better wording.

Or you should learn to understand the English language.

When you state that a specific state of mind(x) is objective irregardless of the time period because of evidence that is available today. That is invoking absence of evidence. I have no idea how else to state that, it is like trying to talk to wall. If you want to change the definition of how you perceive this, it would be 3 rounds of semantics and a huge waste of the limited amount of time that I already have.

Defined1.Moral objectivity (also called minimal or moderate moral realism), the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics or morality is universally valid, without any further semantic or metaphysical claim.

And, on the same token, this is like reading a children's book called 'Baby's First Relativism'.

The existence of disagreement or change in beliefs over time relates to epistemology. Your line of reasoning is that disagreement between cultures necessarily requires them to be on equal footing in reality. The problem is solely epistemological. For instance, physics is not a matter of opinion because a culture can conceive of some BS notions of how matter and energy work. Why, then, is morality a matter of opinion just because disagreement exists?

Apologies but there is no way I would take this debate from you. Every time I see you type something the only thing that comes to mind is "A swing and a miss". You are comparing fundamental objectivity to objectivity of a state of mind. Not just a state of mind, but an objective universal state of mind that has and always will exist regardless of any variables that are added to the equation. It is so incoherent that it is making my head hurt.

At 7/23/2013 12:02:59 AM, Jack212 wrote:You hold one view on morality, I hold another. We disagree, and no empirical test can tell whose morals are "correct". Therefore, morality is subjective.

What a nuanced and sophisticated view.

I addressed your case directly. Absence of knowledge does not change objectivity. You are using semantics with the word objective, and apparently are missing the meaning of the word.

Gaston could write it far better than I hope to

"According to ethical objectivity, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons"

You didn't address anything, because my argument had nothing to do with absence of knowledge. That is simply a misunderstanding on your part, a person with poor philosophical training. No, I was referring to the fact that disagreement does not entail there being no right answer.

Yes, moral objectivity says that the truth of a statement has nothing to do with opinion. Note that. It does not deny that people come to know moral propositions through culture or emotion. It just denies that it has any bearing on its ontological status.

You can state whatever you want, your entire analogy was based on absence of evidence. If you wanted it to entail something different, you should have chose better wording.

Or you should learn to understand the English language.

When you state that a specific state of mind(x) is objective irregardless of the time period because of evidence that is available today. That is invoking absence of evidence. I have no idea how else to state that, it is like trying to talk to wall. If you want to change the definition of how you perceive this, it would be 3 rounds of semantics and a huge waste of the limited amount of time that I already have.

Defined1.Moral objectivity (also called minimal or moderate moral realism), the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics or morality is universally valid, without any further semantic or metaphysical claim.

And, on the same token, this is like reading a children's book called 'Baby's First Relativism'.

The existence of disagreement or change in beliefs over time relates to epistemology. Your line of reasoning is that disagreement between cultures necessarily requires them to be on equal footing in reality. The problem is solely epistemological. For instance, physics is not a matter of opinion because a culture can conceive of some BS notions of how matter and energy work. Why, then, is morality a matter of opinion just because disagreement exists?

Apologies but there is no way I would take this debate from you. Every time I see you type something the only thing that comes to mind is "A swing and a miss". You are comparing fundamental objectivity to objectivity of a state of mind. Not just a state of mind, but an objective universal state of mind that has and always will exist regardless of any variables that are added to the equation. It is so incoherent that it is making my head hurt.

It's been pointed out to you that moral objectivism is not the same thing as moral absolutism. The former states that in any given moral situation, there is one right answer, regardless of what anyone thinks. The latter states there is one right answer that applies to all situations. One says all situations have a right answer, and the other says that there is one right answer for all situations. Learn the difference, please.

As for your hurting head, I recommend medicine, but that's just my opinion, as cultures on this Earth disagree over proper medical treatment.